You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

I'm sure I will be in the minority, but I think it was the right call (minus the obvious pass interference by Tate, but that evens out with the earlier BS pass interference called on Seattle that allowed GB to take the lead)

Clearly Jennings was the first to touch the ball, but he doesn't officially gain possession until he touches the ground. Tate had one hand between Jennings chest and the ball and had his other hand on the ball before Jennings landed. Duel possession and it goes to the offense. If the rule was who had the most control of the ball clearly Jennings did by about 90% vs 10%. If the rule was who was the first to gain possession in the air, then again clearly Jennings. The NFL's statement is 100% what I saw last night and in every slow motion replay since.

I remember a duel possession 2 years ago during a KC game with Eric Berry or maybe Flowers. Where they made a diving interception only to have a WR put one hand on the ball (Not on the backside where he could've caught it, but WR was trying to knock it away from defender) when they landed and rolled both had it with both hands. It was ruled an Int. on the field. After challenge and a review it was ruled duel possession with offense winning "Tie". That wasn't a game deciding call but still similar and it was overturned. If anyone remembers what game this was please post. I'd like to see a replay of it.

I remember hating the call at the time, but accepting it before the game was even over after I took the point of view that the pass isn't dead until the ball hits the ground and the receiver according to rule has the right to gain possession until that happens. The basics of the Duel Rule says the defense is responsible to knock the ball to the ground, or to gain sole possession of it.

Last edited by Piquel on Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

I agree. You are in the minority in thinking that the call was correct. That's the biggest blown I've seen in my entire life. One was waving INT, one was waving TD.

The one waving INT saw from his point of view (back side) that Jennings had caught the ball and maintained possession to the ground. The one that called TD saw from his point of view (front side) That Tate had possession and maintained it to the ground. Duel possession! And for those who say Tate didn't have possession, then I ask why wasn't Jennings able rip the ball away from Tate's fingertips to demonstrate clear solo possession?

I'm not saying I love the call, my eyes tell me it was an INT, but TD is correct according to the rules. This rule reminds me of the WR out of bounds while defender push's him out rule. Old rule left it up to refs it decide if he would've landed inbounds or not. IE a judgement call on an unrealized future event. It is hard to do this fair, so they changed the rule to take the judgement out and it is a clear cut did he get both feet in-bounds or not. The duel poss. rule is setup to take the judgement factor out also. IE only thing that matters is did receiver gain and maintain control of the ball, not a judgement call by the ref about who had more control.

And if this is the biggest blown call you've ever seen, then wait until someone posts the Berry duel poss replay. Berry clearly had sole possession for 1/2 the time he was in the air and the WR only had one hand on it when they landed. During the landing the ball never touched the ground and both players had possession of the ball (IE neither ripped it away from the other) If Berry wouldn't have touched the ball it would of fell incomplete because it had already traveled past the WR reach. But the WR was able to get a hand on it after Berry caught it and WR maintained his hand on the ball all the way through out the landing until whistle was blown ending the play.

It matters not that the Defender had and maintained control of the ball through out landing, but only that he wasn't able to stop the WR from doing the same thing.

Joined: 31 Aug 2011Posts: 7806Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject:

I don't even know if the Chiefs play from a few years ago was correct, since our guy had two hand on the ball as they went down, only to have the offense get two hands on it as they rolled. Regardless, the difference is Tate never had two hands on the ball._________________

BroncosFan2010 wrote:

Your Denver hatred is borderline pathological. I don't think my girlfriend cheating on me would cause me as much hate as you have for Denver.

I don't even know if the Chiefs play from a few years ago was correct, since our guy had two hand on the ball as they went down, only to have the offense get two hands on it as they rolled. Regardless, the difference is Tate never had two hands on the ball.

About ours (I'd like this thread to discuss it because it is same rule and defender had more control then WR and first control just like Monday nights, but less emotion attached to it) The WR got one hand one it before landing, but got both during landing and it was ruled INT on the field, but overturned from replay. I really hope someone can find a replay, I have no clue what game it was, but I know I thought it was Eric Berry at the time it happened, but sometime I get him and Flowers confused 24/29 grrr

It doesn't matter if all 11 guys from the defense jump and get two hands on the ball, if 1 Offense player (eligible receiver of course) is able to get one pinky one the ball and keeps it stuck to the football throughout landing and the ball never touches the ground then it is a reception IE QB threw the ball, it never hit the ground, receiver has hand on the ball. Everything else doesn't matter. If the defender can't maintain sole possession of the ball during landing, it's just like the ball bounced off a defenders head or leg enabling the receiver to catch it.

Just so everyone knows I think that GB was robbed. But it was because of a bad rule, not a bad interpretation of the rules IE refs fault.

Imagine if a WR pins the ball to a defenders back with one hand while both are in the air and maintains it thought out landing, catch right? A defenders hands work the same way if defender doesn't come down with sole possession. With tie going to the offense then the defender has to make sure during landing that there isn't a tie. If you can't rip the ball away from receiver during landing, then he has enough control of the ball to call it a reception.

Joined: 31 Aug 2011Posts: 7806Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject:

That may be true...i'm not sure. I guess it's much like the Calvin Johnson TD catch...what everyone can clearly see as one thing on the field in football terms, is inexplicably ruled differently by the NFL._________________

BroncosFan2010 wrote:

Your Denver hatred is borderline pathological. I don't think my girlfriend cheating on me would cause me as much hate as you have for Denver.

Last edited by ArrowheadRage58 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

If it's the back of the end zone, why not swat it out of the endzone. I feel like that is the safest route. Too many teams have guys trailing the play trying to catch the tips now days._________________

No way I can buy that a defender who brings the ball to his body, maintains control, and remains in bounds is not clearly the sole proprietor of that ball. The receiver 'caught' the ball after the defender did - there was no tie. It was a bad call.

Having said this, as you point out there was also the issue of the no-call offensive pass interference. The league is standing by the call on the field of a touchdown, and therefore the win for the Seahawks, but also admitted in the press release that the no-call should have been flagged. According to the rules, the offensive penalty with no time left negates the play completely. So by their own logic, the NFL admits that Green Bay should have won because no simultaneous catch should have occurred because Golden Tate pushed a guy before the ball arrived - but that call was never made, leaving them an out.

They don't want to create a bigger fiasco by reversing the ruling on the field. The right thing to do, at least if you care about the integrity of the game, is lost amidst the politics of money and trying to maintain leverage over the real referees.

I think it's a lot closer than people think, Tate had two hands on it and the ball didn't touch the ground. If the other guy wasn't there, that would be considered possession. Jennings had "more" possession since it was in his body though. At that point, it's just up to interpretation of the rules.

I'm not convinced a real ref would make the other call either. It's easy to blame the refs here because we know they're replacements. I've seen the real refs blow calls, miss penalties, and flag ticky tacky stuff all the time. We just notice it more now and have a popular excuse to complain about the refs.

I think it's a lot closer than people think, Tate had two hands on it and the ball didn't touch the ground. If the other guy wasn't there, that would be considered possession. Jennings had "more" possession since it was in his body though. At that point, it's just up to interpretation of the rules.

I'm not convinced a real ref would make the other call either. It's easy to blame the refs here because we know they're replacements. I've seen the real refs blow calls, miss penalties, and flag ticky tacky stuff all the time. We just notice it more now and have a popular excuse to complain about the refs.

I agree - I do think it has become popular for everyone in the country whether they watch football or not to pile on these refs. I also agree that they would have likely struggled with the dual possession. On the other hand, they likely would have called the offensive pass interference penalty which would have avoided all of the catch/interception controversy._________________

Joined: 31 Aug 2011Posts: 7806Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:51 am Post subject:

Tate neither caught it, nor did he take it away, or bring it in to his body, or grip it with two hands. If this is a catch, then after any INT an offensive player can tackle the defender, put a hand on the ball as they go down and the refs will have to declare it a reception by the offense._________________

BroncosFan2010 wrote:

Your Denver hatred is borderline pathological. I don't think my girlfriend cheating on me would cause me as much hate as you have for Denver.

My understanding of the rules is that the catch is not completed until it is brought under control (in most cases to the body). In this instance Tate did not and could not bring the ball to his body because well, he did a better job of catching Jennings in my opinion than catching the ball. I think it was a crappy yet very challenging call on the review. The fact is there was multiple terrible calls in this game. The DPI on Chancellor was bad, but not nearly as bad as the DPI on same Sheilds where you can see Sindey Rice pull, then grab both sides of his facemask, yet draw the DEFENSIVE Pass interference.

But the real refs are back...which clearly means the NFL and it's owners believed these bums were capable of calling moving forward, and there si no chance they just agreed to avoid insighting a bigger uproar and having to over-turn results. Amazing how quick that happened after this weekends awful calls.